It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You only consider bias if you have reason to believe there is bias. When we are talking about a proven GPS system, then there is no reason to assume bias.
If you have consistent repeatable, accurate data, then you consider any bias to be minimal,
and your claims about needing to assume bias
Attacking the work of others without any valid reason is considered to be unethical in the scientific community.
Actually I did address the possibility, and in my opinion, the probability, that if the Earth is continuing to grow, that this growth is not linear.
It seems to be a waste to show you anything specific.
Take a dry sponge, one that has been flattened. Then soak the sponge with water, and see what happens.
Look at lava, it is very sponge like. We are talking about volume, when we are talking about things expanding, not density.
Assuming all planets, including Earth just appeared randomly in space as a constant sized sphere is ludicrous.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by sezsue
To me the primary failing of the expanding Earth claims is where does the additional mass come from?
I have not discussed this in detail because there are other wacko problems with the idea that can be discussed first.
Also, I read that the tectonic plate theory has only been around since about the 1950's.....but it also seems like information that is coming out now may actually also support the "Expansion" theory.
Sigh, it does not take much to google it does it? Instead of blasting those who actually have done the research!
Here, Ive done some for you;
at which point gravity could omni-directionally focus total weight of the protoplanet on its exact center.
From this point forward, gravity began to generate immense gravitational pressure that heated and melted originally cold proto-planetary rock to form a molten core that is constantly expanding, thereby creating irresistible tectonic force that fractured the planet’s outer shell and eventually extruded magma, minerals, gases, and H2O from volcanoes, and midocean ridges later, to initiate formation of an atmosphere and hydrosphere.
This core melting and expansion process is the dynamic mechanism that expanded and gradually elevated all surface areas radially outward from the planet’s center— which is best exemplified by the Antarctic continent expanding southward AWAY from all other continents.
If your serious about denying ignorance, then try opening your mind an inch and allowing for the slight possibility that maybe just maybe, we are being lied to by the MAINSTREAM leaders in science and government, I promise you will be that much freer for it! /quote]
Open our mind to the evidence and forget this ludicrous notion of being lied to by the mainstream leaders in science. Test the ideas and see that the expanding Earth claims are really, really dumb.
Here are some beauties from this site:
This discovery also led me to conclude that gravity is the primary force responsible for the spherical shape of all planetary bodies.
That has been known by astronomers and geophysicists for a long, long time.
This is followed by this ridiculous conclusion.
creating tectonic pressure that must either explode the planet or rupture its confining outer shell.
This wacko conclusion does not follow. Where is the extra energy coming from to explode the planet? Why should the force inside of the planet exceed the force caused by gravity?
Volcanoes also recycle core magma onto existing surface areas and thereby add to the planet’s diameter.
This is really dumb. I can't believe how dumb this is. So this person claims that if you take material from the inside and move it to the outside that the planet gets bigger? How ridiculous! That's like claiming that a pie gets larger if the contents boil out through a slit while baking. The removed material from inside causes the mass to remain the same. The only difference in volume is due to changes in the thermal expansion of the materials involved.
How convenient that the writer completely overlooks the issue of subduction zones. What is this fraud trying to hide?
A key discovery in developing this new Accreation Theory came in 1987 from listing most of the larger known bodies in the Solar System by size. [See list below] This list produced an illuminating fact—all smaller solar bodies appear to be irregularly-shaped, but as diameters reach ~400-600 km (~250-375 mi), they become nearly spherical, and ALL ARE SPHERICAL by the time they reach a diameter of ~940 km (~585 mi).
This discovery led me to conclude that all bodies in the Solar System must be created by the same accreation process, whether comet, meteoroid, asteroid, planet or Sun—their only real differences being size, shape, and compositional variety provided by newly-arrived supernovae fragments (comets) and meteor flux from different galactic sources.
This discovery also led me to conclude that gravity is the primary force responsible for the spherical shape of all planetary bodies. After an irregularly-shaped proto-planetary body reaches spherical shape by slow external accretion of mass, the total gravitational pressure of its mass (weight) can be focused omnidirectionally on its exact center, causing compressive heating of originally cold central core material and a phase change to molten magma that expands, creating tectonic pressure that must either explode the planet or rupture its confining outer shell.
This is the first explanation I have ever heard that provides a reasonable explanation why large bodies form into spheres.